SPEECH 


MR.  CASS,  OF  MICHIGAN, 


COLONIZATION  IN  NORTH  AMERICA, 

DELIVERED  » 


IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  JANUARY  25,  1853. 


COLONIZATION  IN  NORTH  AMERICA. 

The  Senate  proceeded,  as  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  to  consider  the  joint  resolution  declaratory 
of  the  views  of  the  United  States  respecting  colon¬ 
ization  on  the  North  American  continent  by  Euro¬ 
pean  Powers,  and  respecting  the  Island  of  Cuba; 
which  is  as  follows: 

'  <£  Beit  resolved,  ^c.,  That  the  United  States  do  hereby 
declare  that  ‘  the  American  continents,  by  the  free  and  in¬ 
dependent  condition  which  they  have  assumed  and  main¬ 
tain,  are  henceforth  not  to  be  considered  as  subjects  for 
future  colonization  by  any  European  Power.’  And  while 
‘existing  rights  should  be  respected,’ and  will  be  by  the 
United  States,  they  owe  it  to  their  own  1  safety  and  inter¬ 
ests’  to  announce,  as  they  now  do,  that  no  future  Euro¬ 
pean  colony  or  dominion  shall,  with  their  consent,  be  planted 
or  established  on  any  part  of  the  North  American  continent.  ’ 
Anri  should  the  attempt  be  made,  they  thus  deliberately  de¬ 
clare  thatit  will  be  viewed  as  an  act  originating  in  motives 
regardless  of  their  ‘  interests  and  their  safety,’ and  which 
will  leave  them  free  to  adopt  such  measures  as  an  independ¬ 
ent  nation  may  justly  adopt  in  defense  of  its  rights  and  its 
honor. 

“  Jlnd  be  it  further  resolved,  That  while  the  United 
States  disclaim  any  designs  upon  the  Island  of  Cuba,  incon¬ 
sistent  with  the  laws  of  nations  and  with  their  duties  to 
Spain,  they  consider  it  due  to  the  vast  importance  of  the 
subject,  to  make  known,  in  this  solemn  manner,  that  they 
should  view  all  efforts  on  the  part  of  any  other  Power  to 
procure  possession,  whether  peaceably  or  forcibly,  of  that 
island,  which,  as  a  naval  or  military  position,  may,  under 
circumstances  easy  to  be  foreseen,  become  dangerous  to 
their  southern  coast,  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  and  to  the 
mouth  of  the  Mississippi,  as  unfriendly  acts,  directed  against 
them,  to  be  resisted  by  all  the  means  in  their  power.” 

The  question  pending  was  on  the  following 
amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Hale: 

“And  be  it  further  resolved,  That  while  the  United 
States,  in  like  manner,  disclaim  any  designs  upon  Canada 
inconsistent  with  the  laws  of  nations,  and  with  their  duties 
to  Great  Britain,  they  consider  it  due  to  the  vast  importance 
of  the  subject  to  make  known,  in  this  solemn  manner,  that 
they  should  view  all  efforts  on  the  part  of  any  other  Power 
to  procure  possession,  either  peaceably  or  forcibly,  of  that 
Province,  (which,  as  a  naval  or  military  position,  must, 
under  circumstances  easy  to  be  foreseen,  become  dangerous 
to  their  northern  boundary,  and  to  the  lakes,)  as  unfriendly 
acts  directed  against  them,  to  be  resisted  by  all  the  means 
n  their  power.” 

Mr.  CASS  rose  and  said:  Mr.  President,  I 
should  be  unwilling  to  address  the  Senate  upon 
the  general  subject  at  this  tinte,  when  we  ljave  just 


!  listened  to  the  eloquent  remarks  of  the  honorable 
Senator  [Mr.  Soule]  who  has  but  now  resumed 
his  seat — remarks  which  I  have  not  heard  sur¬ 
passed  in  this  body,  either  in  power  or  beauty.  I 
do  not  intend  to  commit  the  folly  of  provoking  a 
contrast,  under  such  circumstances;  butl  have  pre¬ 
pared  extracts  from  several  documents,  touching 
the  question,  which  has  been  raised  of  the  extent 
and  duration  of  the  Monroe  doctrine,  and  I  desire 
to  accorhpany  them  with  some  brief  observations, 
which  I  will  now  submit  to  the  Senate,  if  I  can  be 
favored  with  its  attention  for  a  few  minutes. 

For  thirty  years  the  world,  at  any  rate  the 
American  portion  of  it,  and  a  good  deal  of  the 
European,  has  talked  of  the  Monroe  doctrine, 
and  every  school-boy  thought  he  understood  it, 
and  that  it  was  founded  upon  a  great  principle,  that 

1  the  destiny  of  this  hemisphere  should  he  controlled  by 
the  people  inhabiting  it,  and  that  European  influence 
should  be  excluded  from  it,  as  far  and  as  fast  as  ex¬ 
isting  rights  icould  permit.  Mr.  Monroe,  in  1823, 
presented,  in  a  message  to  Congress,  his  general 
views  of  the  relations  of  the  Powers  of  Europe  to 
this  continent,  as  well  with  respect  to  their  inter¬ 
ference  with  its  independent  States,  as  to  projects 
of  new  colonization.  To  be  sure,  as  has  been  re¬ 
marked,  these  two  topics  are  to  be  found  in  dif¬ 
ferent  parts  of  the  same  message,  but  merely 
because  each  connected  itself  more  directly  with 
different  practical  measures;  but  both  together 
formed  his  doctrine,  which  was  founded  on  the 
great  principle  advanced  by  Mr.  Jefferson,  that 
“  America,  North  and  South,  has  a  set  of  interests 
‘  distinct  from  those  of  Europe,  and  peculiarly  her 
‘  own.  She  should  therefore  have  a  system  of  her 
‘own,  separate  and  apart  from  that  of  Europe.” 
And  by  Mr.  Polk,  “  that  the  people  of  this  conti¬ 
nent  have  a  right  to  decide  their  own  destiny.” 

Mr.  Polk,  in  1848,  when  the  “  Holy  Alliance  ” 
was  a  matter  of  almost  remote  history,  in  a  mes¬ 
sage  to  Congress  on  the  subject  of  the  application 
of  the  Government  of  Yucatan  for  aid  against  the 
Indians,  reaffirmed  the  Monroe  doctrine,  and  ob¬ 
served:  * 

I  “  According  to  our  established  policy,  we  could  not  con 


! 


2 


sent  to  a  transfer  of  this  dominion  and  sovereignty  either  to 
Spain,  Great  Britain,  or  any  other  European  Power.  In 
the  language  of  President  Monroe,  in  his  message  of  De¬ 
cember,  1823,  ‘  We  should  consider  any  attempt  on  their 
part  to  extend  their  system  to  any  portion  of  this  hemisphere 
as  dangerous  to  our  peace  and  safety.’  Our  own  security 
requires,  that  the  established  policy  thus  announced  should 
guide  our  conduct,  and  this  applies  with  great  force  to  the 
peninsula  of  Yucatan.” 

It  would  be  a  mere  waste  of  time  to  comment 
upon  these  views  of  Mr.  Polk.  They  speak  for 
themselves  with  equal  force  and  clearness,  and 
they  were  avowed  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  cen¬ 
tury  after  Mr.  Monroe  had  promulgated  his  doc¬ 
trine,  thus  considered  by  Mr.  Polk  as  the  perma¬ 
nent  American  policy.  The  principles  it  asserts  are 
perpetual  in  their  obligation,  and  the  policy  itself 
challenges  our  attention  and  enforcement,  in  all 
time,  present  and  to  come. 

It  is  now  said  that  this-Monroe  doctrine,  so  far 
as  respects  the  independent  States  of  the  conti¬ 
nent,  embalmed,  as  it  was  and  is,  in  the  hearts  of 
the  American  people,  instead  of  being  a  greatsys- 
tem  of  policy,  as  enduring  as  our  political  condi-  ! 
tion,  was  but  a  temporary  measure,  applicable 
only  to  the  anticipated  design  of  the  “  Holy  Alli¬ 
ance,”  as  it  was  unholily  called,  to  restore  the 
recently-emancipated  American  States  to  the  do¬ 
minion  of  Spain.  Instead  of  being  a  great  princi¬ 
ple  of  action,  worthy  of  this  Republic,  it  would 
thus  become  a  mere  expedient,  passing  away  with 
the  occasion,  that  called  it  into  being.  Whether  ; 
this  be  so  or  not  is  a  qu^tion  which  does  not 
touch  the  subject  before  the  Senate,  for  that  must 
be  determined  upon  its  own  merits,  and  not  upon 
the  authority  of  names,  never,  however,  to  be 
slightly  regarded;  but  it  touches  the  fame  of  Mr. 
Monroe  as  a  practical  and  enlightened  statesman, 
for  such  he  truly  was;  but  upon  this  construction 
of  his  views  he  did  not  comprehend  the  conse¬ 
quence  of  his  own  positions,  and  could  not  see 
that  the  grounds  of  his  policy  extended  beyond 
the  single  case  then  more  immediately  before  him. 
His  principles  were  unquestionably  called  out  by 
the  peculiar  danger  of  the  South  American  States, 
and  by  the  claims  of  Russia  on  our  north-western 
coast.  These  circumstances  led  him  to  this  inves¬ 
tigation  into  the  principles  of  our  position  with 
respect  to  this  continent,  and  the  result  we  have 
in  this  farfamed  message. 

And  generally,  it  happens  in  the  policy  of  na¬ 
tions,  that  particular  exigencies  call  forth  the  dis¬ 
cussion  and  assertion  of  great  principles;  but 
while  the  former  disappear  in  the  march  of  events, 
the  latter  remain  to  be  reasserted  and  maintained, 
under  all  circumstances  to  which  they  are  applica-  | 
ble.  As  the  foundation  of  his  doctrine,  he  as¬ 
sumed  the  then  existing  status  or  condition  of  the 
continent,  disclaiming  all  intention  of  interfering 
with  existing  rights,  but  maintaining  principles 
which  denied  to  the  Powers  of  Europe  the  as¬ 
sumption  to  interfere- with  any  independent  State 
at  any  time  thereafter,  or  ever  plant  or  establish 
new  colonies.  Upon  these  general  principles,  j 
European  influence  might  decrease  in  this  hemi¬ 
sphere,  but  could  not  increase;  for  independence, 
once  obtained,  then  and  thereafter,  the  States  so 
obtaining  it  passed  from  the  danger  of  European 
subjugation,  and  would  be  beyond  the  reach,  not 
of  Spain  merely,  but  of  France,  or  England,  or 
any  other  transatlantic  Power.  And  1  may  re¬ 
mark  here,  as  a  proof  that  Mr.  Monroe  consid-  ; 
ered  both  of  the  topics  in  his  message  but  parts  ' 


;  of  one  plan  of  policy,  that  in  the  anti-colonization 
passage  he  makes  no  reservation  of  existing  colo¬ 
nial  rights,  but  declares,  that  these  would  be  re¬ 
spected,  in  that  part  of  the  message  where  he 
protests  against  the  subjugation  of  the  Spanish 
States,  thus  showing  the  intimate  relation  of  the 
whole  subject  in  his  mind.  This  inquiry  into  the 
origin  of  this  doctrine  belongs,  in  truth,  to  the  do¬ 
main  of  history,  and  not  to  that  of  our  permanent 
policy;  for  the  name  of  the  doctrine,  whether 
Monroe,  or  Polk,  or  Jefferson,  or  yet  better, 
American,  matters  little;  the  true  question  being 
whether  it  shall  be  enforced,  now  and  hereafter. 

But  Mr.  Monroe,  in  his  message  of  December, 
1824,  a  year  after  the  one  containing  the  views  re¬ 
ferred  to,  renewed  the  subject, and  in  such  language 
as  leaves  no  doubt,  but  that  this  doctrine,  in  his 
view  of  it,  was  perpetual,  and  to  be  made  part  of 
our  national  code  of  policy.  He  said: 

“  Separated  as  vve  are  from  Europe  by  the  great  Atlantic 
ocean,  we  can  have  no  concern  in  the  wars  of  the  Euro¬ 
pean  Governments,  nor  in  the  causes  which  produce  them. 
The  balance  of  power  between  them,  into  whichever  scale 
it  may  turn,  in  its  various  vibrations,  cannot  atfect  us.  It 
is  the  interest  of  the  United  States  to  preserve  the  most 
friendly  relations  with  every  Power,  and  on  conditions  fair, 
equal,  and  applicable  to  all.  But  in  regard  to  our  neigh¬ 
bors  our  situation  is  different.  It  is  impossible  for  the  Euro¬ 
pean  Governments  to  interfere  in  their  concerns,  especially 
in  those  alluded  to,  which  are  vital,  without  affecting  us. 
Indeed,  the  motive,  which  might  induce  such  interference  in 
the  present  state  of  the  war  between  the  parties,  if  a  war  it 
may  be  called,  would  appear  equally  applicable  to  us.” 

Now,  it  will  be  seen,  that  these  principles  had  no 
peculiar  relation  to  the  “  Holy  Alliance,”  as  it  is 
contended  those  of  the  first  message  had,  but  they 
extend  to  all  time,  and  to  all  the  European  Gov¬ 
ernments.  Indeed,  we  learn  from  Mr.  Clay,  in 
some  remarks  made  in  the  House  of  Representa¬ 
tives  in  June,  1824,  that  the  fear  of  the  action  of 
that  alliance  upon  these  States  had  given  way ,  and 
“  that  if  such  a  purpose  were  ever  seriously  enter¬ 
tained,  it  had  been  relinquished.”  Mr.  Monroe, 
in  fact,  in  the  passage  from  which  the  above  ex¬ 
tract  is  taken,  considers  the  condition  of  these 
States  much  improved  and  strengthened,  and  his 
observations  evidently  bear  upon  future  difficul¬ 
ties,  not  then  foreseen,  but  which  might  happen, 
and  would  then  have  to  be  met.  We  may  yet 
have  to  meet  them. 

Mr.  Monroe,  it  is  well  known,  was  in  the  Ifabit 
of  consulting  Mr.  Jefferson  in  all  grave  conjunc¬ 
tures,  and  fortunately  he  consulted  him  on  the 
subject  of  his  doctrine,  and  we  have  the  senti¬ 
ments  of  that  patriarch  of  the  Democratic  faith  in 
relation  to  it.  These  are  to  be  found  in  a  letter 
from  him  to  Mr.  Monroe,  dated  October  24,  1823, 
a  few  weeks  before  the  message  appeared,  written 
in  answer  to  Mr.  Monroe’s  application  for  his 
opinion. 

Mr.  Jefferson  said: 

“  The  question  presented  by  the  letters  you  have  sent  me, 
is  the  most  momentous,  which  has  ever  been  offered  to  my 
contemplation,  since  that  of  independence.  That  made  us 
a  nation  ;  this  sals  our  compass ,  and  points  the  course ,  which 
we  are  to  steer  through  the  ocean  of  time.  And  never  could 
we  embark  on  it  under  circumstances  more  auspicious. 
Our  first  and  fundamental  maxim  should  be,  never  to  en¬ 
tangle  ourselves  in  the  broils  of  Europe.  Our  second,  never 
to  suffer  Europe  to  intermeddle  with  cisatlantic  affairs. 
America,  North  and  South,  has  a  set  of  interests  distinct 
1  from  those  of  Europe,  and  peculiarly  her  own.  She  should, 
therefore,  have  a  system  of  her  own,  separate  and  apart  from 
that  of  Europe  ;  the  last  is  laboring  to  become  the  domicil 
of  despotism — our  endeavor  should  surely  be  to  make  our 
hemisphere  that  of  freedom.” 


3 


>*  , 

/  sS'  V  - 


Can  one  man  be  found,  who  will  contend,  that 
these  noble  sentiments,  worthy  of  him  who  uttered 
them,  and  now  become  a  precious  legacy  for  the 
American  people, — can  one  man,  1  say,  be  found, 
who  will  venture  to  contend,  that  these  words  of 
wisdom  and  patriotism  are  temporary  in  their  force 
and  application,  belonging  only  to  the  passing 
hour,  and  confined  to  the  efforts  of  a  league,  which, 

1  believe,  died  before  the  writer,  short  even  as  was 
his  tenure  of  life  ?  Thus,  to  narrow  down  a  great 
national  principle,  is  wholly  to  mistake  the  liberal¬ 
ity  and  far-reaching  policy  of  this,  the  greatest  of 
American  statesmen,  after  the  first  and  the  dear¬ 
est,  Washington.  “  His  OCEAN  OF  TIME  OPENING 
upon  us”  was  bounded  by  no  such  contracted 
limits.  It  was  a  true  ocean,  and  not  a  mere  duck- 
pond. 

And  this  same  letter  of  Mr.  Jefferson  exhibits, 
in  a  still  more  signal  manner,  the  vast  importance 
be  attached  to  this  principle  of  never  suffering 
“  Europe  to  intermeddle  with  cisatlantic  affairs.”  j 
"Why,  sir,  he  was  actually  ready,  even  then,  to  i 
go  to  war  for  its  practical  maintenance.  He  , 
was  far  ahead  of  all  of  us,  and  I  must  confess  ; 
that  I  have  seldom  been  more  gratified,  than  to 
find  myself  thus  not  only  supported,  but  antici¬ 
pated  by  a  name,  which  will  live  in  the  hearts  of 
the  American  people  as  long  as  they  cherish  a 
reverence  for  real  patriotism,  true  Democracy,  and 
the  highest  qualities  of  our  nature,  ennobled  by  a 
life  devoted  to  his  country.  I  can  now  stand 
proudly  upon  this  position,  pointing  to  Mr.  Jeffer¬ 
son’s  declaration,  that  he  was  willing  to  fight  even 
along  side  of  England  in  such  a  cause — “  not  that  I 
would  purchase,”  he  says,  “  her  amity  at  the  price 

*  of  war.  But  the  war  in  which  the  present  prop- 
‘  osition  might  engage  us,  should  that  be  its  con- 
‘  sequence,  is  not  her  war,  but  ours.  Its  object  is 

*  to  introduce  and  establish  the  American  system 
‘  of  keeping  out  of  our  land  all  foreign  Powers,  of 

*  never,  (not  to-day,)  of  never  permitting  those 
‘  of  Europe  to  intermeddle  with  the  affairs  of  our 
‘  nations.  It  is  to‘ maintain  our  own  principle,  not 
‘  to  depart  from  it.”  Any  question  of  the  justice 
or  expediency  of  the  first  of  these  resolutions,  I 
may  hereafter  consider  a  question  between  the  ob¬ 
jector  and  Mr.  Jefferson,  and  not  one  between  the 
former  and  myself. 

The  opinion  of  Mr.  Adams,  who  of  course 
could  not  but  understand  the  views  of  Mr.  Mon¬ 
roe,  as  he  was  then  Secretary  of  State,  and  of  Mr. 
Clay,  who  took  a  deep  interest  in  this  matter,  and 
introduced  a  joint  resolution  into  the  House  of 
Representatives  on  the  29th  of  January,  1824,  af¬ 
firming  the  non-interference  doctrine  of  Mr.  Mon¬ 
roe,  are  distinctly  shown  in  the  instruction  of  Mr. 
Clay  to  Mr.  Poinsett,  dated  March  25,  1825, 
wherein  Mr.  Monroe’s  message  and  principles 
are  referred  to,  and  their  existing  force  asserted 
and  assumed.  Mr.  Clay,  while  reporting  these 
instructions  to  Mr.  Adams,  for  transmission  to 
the  Plouse  of  Representatives,  observes,  “  that 
‘  all  apprehension  of  the  danger  to  which  Mr. 

‘  Monroe  alludes,  of  an  interference  by  the  allied 
‘Powers,  (otherwise  the  ‘Holy  Alliance,’)  to 

*  introduce  their  political  systems  into  this  hemi- 

*  sphere,  have  ceased.”  But  notwithstanding  this, 
in  these  instructions  to  Mr.  Poinsett,  he  is  told  that 
the  great  principle  of  non-interference  “  was  de-  i 
dared  in  the  face  of  the  world”  (by  Mr.  Monroe) 

“  at  a  moment  when  there  was  reason  to  appre-  | 


‘hend,  that  the  allied  Powers  were  entertaining 
‘[designs  inimical  to  the  freedom,  if  not  to  the 
‘  independence,  of  the  new  Governments.  There 
‘  is  reason  to  believe,  that  the  declaration  of  it  had 
‘  considerable  effect  in  preventing  tl\e  maturity,  if 
‘  not  in  producing  the  abandonment,  of  all  such 
‘  designs.  Both  principles  [this  and  the  anti-col- 
‘  onization  one]  were  laid  down  after  much  and 
‘  anxious  deliberation  on  the  part  of  the  late  Ad- 
‘  ministration.  The  President,  [Mr.  Adams,] 

‘  who  then  formed  a  part  of  it,  continues  entirely 
‘  to  coincide  in  both,  and  you  will  urge  upon  the 
‘  Government  of  Mexico  the  utility  and  expedi- 
‘  ency  of  asserting  the  same  principles  on  all 
‘  proper  occasions.” 

What  principles  ?  Not  a  single  one,  so  narrow 
and  temporary,  as  to  be  confined  to  a  mere  pass¬ 
ing  occurrence,  to  a  league  which  had  as  much 
passed  away  from  any  operation  on  this  continent 
as  the  Grecian  league  for  the  destruction  of  Troy. 
If  Mr.  Adams  and  Mr.  Clay  did  not  wholly  mis¬ 
understand  Mr.  Monroe’s  doctrine,  it  was  pre¬ 
cisely  the  doctrine  enunciated  in  the  resolution 
before  the  Senate.  One  fact  stated  by  Mr.  Clay 
upon  the  authority  of  Mr  Adams,  shows,  that 
this  declaration  of  Mr.  Monroe  was  a  Cabinet 
measure,  fully  considered,  and  no  doubt  amply 
discussed.  Indeed,  without  this  authority,  judg¬ 
ing  from  the  cautious  character  of  Mr.  Monroe,  it 
'would  have  been  safe  to  conclude,  that  so  import¬ 
ant  a  step  would  not  have  been  taken  by  him 
without  consultation  with  his  confidential  advisers. 
And  especially,  as  it  is  known  that  his  messages, 
before  being  sent  to  Congress,  were  always  read, 
and,  if  occasion  required,  discussed,  paragraph  by 
paragraph,  at  Cabinet  meetings;  and  such  indeed 
was  the  practice  of. his  predecessors. 

Mr.  Clay  states  that  the  declaration  of  Mr. 
Monroe  had  been  useful.  Still  its  efficiency  was 
limited  by  the  considerations  already  adverted  to, 
that  it  was  the  act  only  of  the  Executive  Depart¬ 
ment,  which  could  not  pledge  the  nation  to  any 
particular  course  of  policy.  Congress  alone  could 
do  that;  and  the  propriety  of  its  action  was  so  ob¬ 
vious,  that  both  Mr.  Clay  and  Mr.  Poinsett  intro¬ 
duced  resolutions  into  the  House  of  Representa¬ 
tives  affirming  the  doctrine.  It  is  probable,  that 
the  reason  given  by  Mr.  Clay  for  not  pushing  the 
one  presented  by  him  to  a  final  vote,  operated  also 
on  others;  and  that  was  that  the  apprehended 
danger  from  the  “Holy  Alliance”  had  disappeared, 
ar)d  I  suppose,  then,  as  now,  the  difficulty  of  car¬ 
rying  such  a  measure  increased,  as  the  cause  of 
apprehension  decreased.  We  stopped  short  in 
our  true  work,  and  waited  for  another  expedient 
before  proclaiming  a  principle.  Mr.  Jefferson  also, 
with  his  sound  practical  wisdom,  saw  that  Mr. 
Monroe’s  declaration,  in  order  to  attain  its  object, 
needed  the  support  and  authority  of  Congress; 
and  lie  therefore  recommended  to  him,  in  the  letter 
already  referred  to,  that  “  as  it  may  lead  to  war, 

‘  the  declaration  of  which  requires  an  act  of  Con- 
‘  gress,  the  case  shall  be  laid  before  them  for  con- 
‘  sideration  at  their  first  meeting,  and  under  the 
‘  reasonable  aspect,  in  which  it  is  seen  by  himself,” 
(the  President.) 

With  respect  to  Cuba,  I  am  glad  to  be  able  to 
fortify  my  position  by  the  opinions  of  both  Mr. 
Jefferson  and  Mr.  Clay.  No  man  will  now  ac¬ 
cuse  either  of  those  distinguished  statesmen  with 
being  influenced  by  any  other  motives,  than  a  love 


F 


of  country,  and  a  desire  to  promote  her  interest  : 
in  a  spirit  of  justice. 

Mr.  Jefferson,  in  the  same  letter,  said: 

“I  candidly  confess  t  have  ever  looked  on  Cuba  as  the  I 
most  interesting*addition,  which  could  ever  be  made  to  our  i 
system  of  States.  The  control,  which,  with  Florida  Point,  j 
this  island  would  give  us  over  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  and  the 
countries  and  isthmus  bordering  on  it,  as  well  as  those 
whose  waters  tiow  into  it,  would  till  up  the  measure  of 
our  political  well  being.  Yet,  as  I  am  sensible  that  this  can 
never  be  obtained,  even  with  her  [Spain’s]  own  consent 
but  by  war,  [he  means  a  war  with  England  from  her  oppo¬ 
sition  to  the  measure,]  and  its  independence,  [that  of 
Cuba,]  which  is  our  second  interest,  and  especially  its  in¬ 
dependence  of  England  can  be  secured  without  it,  I  have 
no  hesitation  in  abandoning  my  first  wish  to  future  chances, 
and  accepting  its  independence,  with  peace  and  the  friend¬ 
ship  of  England,  rather  than  its  association  [query:  acces¬ 
sion:]  at  the  expense  of  war  and  her  enmity.” 

It  is  due  to  Mr.  Jefferson  to  state,  that  at  the 
time  he  wrote,  free  institutions  through  the  world 
seemed  to  have  much  to  apprehend  from  this  Holy 
Alliance,  and  believing  that  England  was  really 
desirous  of  thwarting  their  views,  he  was  therefore 
the  more  willing  to  act  in  concert  with  her. 

Thirty  years  have  produced  a  wonderful  change 
in  the  world,  since  these  remarks  of  Mr.  Jeffer¬ 
son.  They  have  produced  none  in  our  interest 
and  our  desire  to  procure  Cuba,  when  we  can  do 
it  justly,  nor  in  our  willingness,  that  it  should  be¬ 
come  independent.  But  as  to  any  fear  that  Eng¬ 
land  would  oppose  us  in  taking  possession  of  , 
Cuba,  under  a  voluntary  arrangement  with  Spain, 
or  underany  other  proper  circumstances,  it  is  afeel- 
ing  which  will  never,  I  trust,  enter  into  our  public 
councils,  certainly  never  into  the  hearts  of  the 
American  people.  Events  since  that  period  have 
augmented  our  power  in  a  mighty  ratio,  and  have 
taught  us  to  use  it  when  our  honor  and  interest 
require  the  exertion.  Mr.  Jefferson,  when  he 
wrote  this  letter,  undoubtedly  supposed  that  Cuba 
would  follow  the  example  of  the  other  Spanish 
provinces,  and  become  independent. 

Mr.  Clay  appreciated  the  importance  of  Cuba, 
as  well  as  of  Porto  Rico;  for  we  find,  in  a  letter 
which  he  wrote  to  Mr.  Middleton,  on  the  26th  of ! 
December,  1825,  that  Minister  was  directed  to  | 
inform  the  Russian  Government  that  “  we  cannot  i 
‘  allow  the  transfer  of  these  islands  to  any  Euro-  | 
‘  pean  Power;”  and  the  same  determination  was 
avowed,  in  still  stronger  terms,  in  a  dispatch  to 
the  American  Minister  to  Paris,  to  be  made  known 
to  the  French  Government,  “  that  we  would  not 
‘  consent  to  the  occupation  of  those  islands  by  any 
‘  other  European  Power  than  Spain,  under  any 
*  circumstances  whatsoever .  ” 

Now,  sir,  I  shall  pursue  this  topic  no  further, 
satisfied  that  these  resolutions  are  not  only  just  in 
themselves,  but  that  they  assei't  a  system  of  policy 
sanctioned  by  the  opinions  of  some  of  the  highest 
names  in  our  political  history.  It  will  appear,  in 
looking  back  to  the  extracts  I  have  made  from  the 
letter  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  that  I  am  supported  by 
the  weight  of  his  opinion  in  the  following  propo¬ 
sitions,  embodied  in  or  connected  with  these  reso¬ 
lutions: 


First.  That  European  Powers  should  not  be 
i  permitted  “  to  intermeddle  with  cisatlantic  af¬ 
fairs,”  meaning  thereby  those  affairs  which  relate 
to  the  political  condition  of  the  people  of  this  conti¬ 
nent,  and  accepting  the  reservation  of  Mr.  Monroe 
that  existing  colonial  rights  should  not  be  inter- 
j  fered  with. 

Second.  That  this  doctrine  should  be  adhered 
to,  even,  if  necessary,  at  the  expense  of  war. 

Third.  That  the  United  States  have  a  deep  in¬ 
terest  in  the  acquisition  of  Cuba,  and  that  if  we 
cannot  obtain  possession  of  it  without  too  great  a 
cost  of  blood  or  treasure,  it  must  be  secured  (espe¬ 
cially  from  the  oontrol  of  England)  by  its  inde¬ 
pendence.  And  we  may  add,  now,  since  circum¬ 
stances  have  much  changed,  and  the  immediate 
dangers,  then  impending  over  the  island  have 
passed  away,  that  it  may  with  safety  remain  in 
the  possession  of  Spain ,  so  long  as  she  can  hold  it, 
and  takes  no  step  to  convert  it  to  our  injury. 

Fourth.  That  it  is  proper,  that  declarations  upon 
these  subjects  should  be  submit  ted  to  Congress,  in 
I  order  to  procure  their  cooperation,  as,  without  it, 

!  such  declarations  might  be  fruitless. 

;  Fifth.  In  addition  to  these  propositions,  there  is 
j  another  opinion  advanced  by  Mr.  Jefferson  in  this 
letter,  which  I  confess  I  have  read  with  unmixed 
satisfaction,  for  it  confirms  in  full  the  propriety  of 
the  proposition,  which  I  submitted  to  the  Senate  at 
our  last  session,  to  declare  our  protest  against  the 
atrocious  violation  of  the  rights  of  nations  by  the 
interference  of  one  Power,  the  Emperor  of  Rus¬ 
sia,  in  the  internal  affairs  of  another,  the  Hunga¬ 
rian  kingdom.  Mr.  Jefferson’s  words  deserve  to 
be  held  in  perpetual  remembrance.  Plere  they 
are: 

Ci  Nor  is  the  occasion  to  be  slishfed,  which  this  proposi¬ 
tion  offers,  of  declaring  our  protest  against  the  atrocious 
violation  of  the  rights  of  nations,  by  the  interference  (if 
any  one  in  the  internal  affairs  of  another,  so  flagitiously  be¬ 
gun  by  Bonaparte,  and  now  continued  by  the  equally  law- 
ess  ailiance,  calling  itself  holy.” 

Here  we  have  the  principle  distinctly  asserted 
of  the  propriety  of  a  national  protest  upon  such 
an  occasion,  and  we  have  the  authority  of  the  very 
author  of  the  expression  “  entangling  alliances,” 
so  triumphantly  appealed  to  last  session^asa  rea¬ 
son  for  our  inaction,  for  denying  its  applicability 
to  the  case;  which,  indeed,  ought  to  have  been  ob¬ 
vious  enough,  without  this  exposition  of  his  own 
doctrine,  unless  it  could  be  shown,  that  we  could 
form  an  ailiance  without  allies,  and  that  allies  are 
created  simply  by  a  protest  against  an  assumption 
to  prostrate  a  great  principle  of  public  law  which 
protected  the  freedom  and  independence  of  nations. 

,  But  we  could  not  keep  on  the  line  of  political  knowl¬ 
edge ,  and  shrank  from  the  responsibility  imposed 
upon  us  by  our  position  as  the  great  Republic  of 
the  world.  We  now  know,  that  Mr.  Jefferson 
would  have  voted  for  the  proposition  had  he  then 
been  a  member  of  this  body.  That  is  honor 
enough  for  those  of  us,  who  found  ourselves  in  the 
minority. 


